SGDC 5023/UUM

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 MAIN ISSUE

Using self-and peer-assessment to enhance students, future learning in higher education.

In higher education settings, assessment tasks get the attention of students, but once

students submit their work they typically become disengaged with the assessment process.

Thus, opportunities for learning are lost as they become passive recipients of assessment

outcomes. Future learning oriented assessment engages students in the assessment process to

improve both short and long term outcomes by requiring students to make sophisticated

judgements about their own learning and that of their peers. Unfortunately, sometimes

assessment does not focus on the processes of learning, and particularly on how students will

learn after the point of assessment. This means, we may be missing an opportunity to better

prepare students for their professional lives post-graduation. There is a new pressure on

academics develop forms of assessment which promote efficient learning for more students

for a longer time-assessment for life long learning.

1.2 PURPOSE

The purpose of the article is to foster future learning by using self and peer

assessment towards better short-long term learning outcomes in higher education.

Additionally, assessment processes focused on future learning are carefully and

constructively aligned with the intended learning outcomes in ways that allow learning to

extend beyond the completion of the course.

1
SGDC 5023/UUM

1.3 INFORMATION FROM LITERATURE REVIEW

The author had used literature review as framework for his article. As a backup for his

ideas and proposals, author has used multiple views from other authors as a reference and for

justification purposes. In the last decade there has been interest in the idea that assessment

needs to contribute to future learning. David Boud and various colleagues (Boud, 2007; Boud

& Associates, 2010) have championed this cause, but in our opinion there is a need for more

empirical research to support the claims being made. In this review of the literature, we

provide details of claims based on empirical research, and demonstrate that such research

tends to be the exception rather than the rule. This weakness in the literature, is also

highlighted by the authors of the Assessment 2020 paper (Boud & Associates, 2010), and

warrants serious consideration be given to the issue.

The literature suggests that students need to develop as independent learners in order

to be successful in their higher education programs and also in their professional lives post-

graduation. Boud and Falchikov (2007a) have described the ability to evaluate ones learning

and performance as an essential part of becoming an accomplished and effective

professional (p. 184). Similarly, Biggs and Tang (2007) argued that the ability to make

judgements about whether a performance or product meets a given criteria is vital for

effective professional action in any field. Tan (2007) also argued for self-assessment

development practices that can develop and sustain students' self assessment ability beyond

its immediate programme of study (p. 115). However, part of this preparation for the future

requires helping students to learn to continuously monitor the quality of their work during the

act of production itself, so they can make improvements in real time (Montgomery, 2000;

Sadler, 1989).

2
SGDC 5023/UUM

Two effective teaching and learning processes that can assist with the development of such

judgment are self-assessment and peer-assessment, and the literature provides examples of

how these processes have been used successfully in higher education. A third strategy, which

will not be discussed extensively in this paper, concerns the use of portfolios as an

assessment tool.

Portfolios involve students in the direct monitoring and regulation of their own learning as

they reflect on their achievements and select work that they believe demonstrates they meet

or exceed certain standards (for more details see, Nicol & Milligan, 2006). In the project

described in this paper, we chose to focus primarily on the processes of self- and peer-

assessment, and in the following section we will review selected recent literature published

describing the efficacy of these processes.

Self- and peer-assessment

Many developments in self- and peer-assessment have focussed on a form of academic

socialisation, which seeks to make the codes or rules of the assessment game explicit and

transparent to students (Norton, 2004). For example, requiring students to use rubrics to

assess the work of their peers helps them to understand the assessment criteria that will be

used to assess their own work. However, self- and peer-assessment can reportedly achieve

more. It may also help students to become realistic judges of their own performance, by

enabling them to monitor their own learning, rather than relying on their teachers for

feedback (Crisp, 2007; Sambell, McDowell, & Sambell, 2006). Students ability to self-

assess can provide valuable clues to the teacher about how deeply they have understood the

tasks and this information can improve teaching and learning (Montgomery, 2000). Research

conducted by Tan (2007) involving interviews of academics across 12 discipline areas in

three universities in Australia identified three progressive conceptions of self-assessment.

3
SGDC 5023/UUM

teacher driven, program driven, and future driven self assessment. The future driven

conception of self-assessment seeks to help students to develop skills to construct assessment

criteria, negotiate against external standards, and make judgements using those criteria.

According to Tan only this future driven assessment helps students to sustain their self-

assessment capacity independent of teachers.

Peer-assessment includes processes which require students to provide either feedback or

grades (or both) to their peers on a product, process, or performance, based on the criteria of

excellence for that product or event which students may have been involved in determining

(Falchikov, 2007, p. 132). Whatever form of peer-assessment is used, ideally the method

should allow learners to practice making reasonable judgements about the extent to which

their peers have achieved expected outcomes (Falchikov, 2007). Some academics are

cautious about using peer-assessment as a form of summative assessment that actually counts

towards students grades. However, Falchikov (2007) urged us to be wary of all grading

processes, not just peer-assessment, and she argued that concerns about the validity and

reliability of peer-assessment can be addressed. Three strategies which teachers can use to

improve the quality of both self- and peer-assessment include modelling, scaffolding, and

fading (Falchikov, 2007). Before engaging students in self and peer-assessment, teachers can

provide examples of how they personally use assessment tools and strategies to improve

reliability and accuracy. In terms of scaffolding, Falchikov (2007) encouraged teachers to

initially start with structured grading schemes (for example, rubrics), before moving to less

structured systems where students negotiate the assessment criteria, before students

eventually developing their own criteria. Andrade and Du (2007) also recommended the

use of scaffolding to teach students how to use self-assessment tools. They found that

students attitudes toward self-assessment became more positive as they gained experience

with it. The students experiences were more positive if teachers provided clear articulation

4
SGDC 5023/UUM

of assessment criteria and rubrics resulting in higher grades, better academic work,

increased motivation,

mindfulness, learning, and reduced anxiety. As students achieve greater independence in peer

assessment the amount of direction and level of support offered by the teacher fades, or is

withdrawn, over time. However, this should be discussed and negotiated with students and

Brew (1999) maintained that more positive responses to the use of self-assessment are likely

when the teachers expectations are clear and when the students have received systematic

practice. Research drawing on student feedback on the use of a computer assisted peer

assessment tool (Davies, 2003) and student responses to surveys after participating in self

assessment (Cassidy, 2007) identified some barriers to the effective use of self- and peer-

assessment. Davies and Cassidy reported negative consequences if: students perceived that

self- and peer assessment were being used as a means of alleviating pressures for tutors; if

students feel ill-equipped or not capable; if students feel uncomfortable with the

responsibility of peer assessment duties; and if tutors have concerns about subjectivity and

reliability of assessment. Carless (2006) suggested that teachers can improve the

effectiveness of self- and peer-assessment by being very clear with the students how they will

benefit from participating.

Finally, Boud (2007a) was adamant that teachers must do more than just align assessment

with the subject objectives; we must also align assessment with the future. In this regard,

Boud suggested that it would be preferable for assessment tasks to be designed with due

consideration of how the student will be required to use skills and knowledge in the future

and he suggested that the links to the future should be made explicit. Hence, a course which

produces graduates who are required make critical judgments about the quality of some work

output, must provide students with opportunities to make such judgments in a contextually

appropriate manner, when they are studying. This extends Biggs and Tangs (2007) concept

5
SGDC 5023/UUM

of constructive alignment beyond its normal application of aligning assessment with intended

learning outcomes and activities within a subject.

1.4 CONCLUSION BY THE AUTHOR

The authors concludes with suggestions on how others might also use self-and peer

assessment to work towards better short-long term learning outcome sin higher education. In

this final section of the paper, the learning that author feel has emerged from the

implementation of self- and peer-assessment initiatives designed to encourage future

learning. Before doing so it is worth restating authors belief that curriculum reform processes

in higher education should encourage academics to find ways of assessing students work that

demonstrate high levels of constructive alignment. Future learning is not a simple task thus

careful planning is required to ensure alignment between philosophical underpinnings, the

intended purpose and practicalities of the assessment tool and processes. Author offer the

following recommendations for other academics on how we think self- and peer-assessment

can generate better short- and long-term learning outcomes in higher education - based on

our case studies and our interpretation of the literature.

1.5 IMPLICATION OF THE CONCLUSION

Author encourage academics to consider constructive alignment not only within the

context and timeline of their subjects, but also in terms of how the assessment and intended

learning outcomes align with the contexts their students may work in upon graduation. We

would argue that assessment processes can be designed to not only measure, but also

encourage, learning that is relevant to the roles that students may fulfil in the professional

community upon graduation. The projects described in this paper, have experimented with

the use of self- and peer-assessment processes as tools to encourage such future learning.

6
SGDC 5023/UUM

1.7 AUTHORS POINT OF VIEW

From the point of view of authors, developing assessment processes that

encourage future learning is not a simple task and based on our experience careful planning is

required to ensure, the intended purpose, and practicalities of the assessment tools and

processes. This requires a deeper level of constructive alignment of assessment principles

with teaching. Authors consider this to be a form of external constructive alignment of the

subject with contexts where learning will be applied and the assessment processes that best

measure that learning. This seems to be mostly concerned with the internal alignment of

intended learning outcomes with teaching content and assessment tasks.

Authors believe that their findings and the outcomes might stimulate other academics

to reflect on their own assessment practices and to find ways to encourage their own students

achieve deeper learning in both the short-and long term learning. With an appropriate level of

support and planning authors, believe that the advantages of involving students in self- and

peer-assessment processes that they observed in their initiatives easily outweighed the

disadvantages.

The measuring tool is relevant to be applied as authors suggested that recruiting the

assistance of critical friends to work through new initiatives to help identify alignment

glitches that students seem to discover. If you plan to use self- and peer-assessment processes

to encourage future learning, be prepared to spend sufficient time discussing with students

your rationale for doing so, as recommended in the literature Such discussions provide

excellent opportunities to engage students thinking about learning and assessment and in our

7
SGDC 5023/UUM

initiatives these discussions promoted unexpected, but welcomed, higher order thinking.

They also found initiatives that these discussions addressed students concerns and anxieties

about self- and peer-assessment and made explicit our hopes for the way these processes

would contribute to future learning. However, examine these tools carefully before adopting

them because their design and operation will be based on some inherent assumptions, beliefs

and values.

Authors justified his recommendations by saying that academics check the

compatibility of these tools with their own values and beliefs about assessment and the

purposes for which they will be used. Expect resistance from students, peers, and supervisors

when developing and implementing innovative assessment strategies. Although there is a

paucity of empirical research demonstrating the effectiveness of assessment strategies to

foster future learning, there is considerable agreement within the literature on the benefits of

using self- and peer-assessments with students in higher education settings.

Authors have not attempted to prove the effectiveness of self- and peer-assessment to

enhance future learning, but this would be a worthy focus for future research. Thus I believe

the information provided is insufficient but yet its valid as been tested on the different

scenarios in higher education settings. The output was as expected and potentially proves that

to foster future learning, self and peer assessment would be the best strategy.

From my perspective, one of the ways in which students internalize the characteristics

of quality work is by evaluating the work of their peers. However, if they are to offer helpful

feedback, students must have a clear understanding of what they are to look for in their peers'

work. The instructor must explain expectations clearly to them before they begin. One way to

make sure students understand this type of evaluation is to give students a practice session

with it. The instructor provides a sample writing or speaking assignment. As a group,

8
SGDC 5023/UUM

students determine what should be assessed and how criteria for successful completion of the

communication task should be defined. Then the instructor gives students a sample

completed assignment. Students assess this using the criteria they have developed, and

determine how to convey feedback clearly to the fictitious student. Thus the information

highlighted in the article is relevant to the current learning style and foster mastery of content

effectively.

Students can also benefit from using rubrics or checklists to guide their assessments.

At first these can be provided by the instructor; once the students have more experience, they

can develop them themselves. It helps the peer evaluator focus on these areas by asking

questions about specific points, such as the presence of examples to support the ideas

discussed.

For peer evaluation to work effectively, the learning environment in the classroom

must be supportive. Students must feel comfortable and trust one another in order to provide

honest and constructive feedback. This allows them to become more comfortable with each

other and leads to better peer feedback.

Regarding the self assessment, as from the article, students can become better

language learners when they engage in deliberate thought about what they are learning and

how they are learning it. In this kind of reflection, students step back from the learning

process to think about their language learning strategies and their progress as language

learners. Such self assessment encourages students to become independent learners and can

increase their motivation.

Students do not learn to monitor or assess their learning on their own; they need to be

taught strategies for self monitoring and self assessment. Techniques for teaching students

9
SGDC 5023/UUM

these strategies are parallel to those used for teaching learning strategies. The instructor

models the technique (use of a checklist or rubric, for example); students then try the

technique themselves; finally, students discuss whether and how well the technique worked

and what to do differently next time.

In addition to checklists and rubrics for specific communication tasks, students can

also use broader self-assessment tools to reflect on topics they have studied, skills they have

learned, their study habits, and their sense of their overall strengths and weaknesses.

Students can share their self-assessments with a peer or in a small group, with instructions

that they compare their impressions with other criteria such as test scores, teacher

evaluations, and peers' opinions. This kind of practice helps students to be aware of their

learning. It also informs the teacher about students' thoughts on their progress, and gives the

teacher feedback about their learning.

As with any form of assessment that is used there are associated risks. There are few

problems associated with the evaluation method missed by the author. The main areas of

problems identified in implementing self-and peer assessment are reactions of colleagues and

external examiners. Self and peer assessment challenges well-established beliefs about who

should rightfully assess students work and the respective roles/responsibilities of lecturers

and students. The methods can be contentious and invite rigorous debate about the

maintenance of standards. Learner as the recipients cannot be the right person to judge

whether knowledge has been correctly learnt since they are not experts and therefore lack

mastery of the content. If, by contrast, the student is viewed as an active participant in a

learning process where learning is constructed by the learner rather than simply received,

with students playing a role in both what they learn and deciding whether they have learnt it,

then self and peer assessment becomes a legitimate activity for students.

10
SGDC 5023/UUM

Prior to implementation, to overcome the problems associated with self-and peer

assessment method, it is advisable to involve colleagues and external examiners in

discussions about the introduction of self/peer assessment and to explore issues related to

design, implementation and review.

Secondly, time is needed in setting up the self/ peer assessment processes.Like all

assessment methods, if self and peer assessment methods are to have credibility then it is

crucial that issues of validity, reliability and explicitness are addressed. The degree to which

the assessment procedure actually measures what it is supposed to measure. The degree to

which the assessment procedure produces consistent results is called reliability. Reliability is

about striving for inter- and intra- assessment. Well-articulated assessment criteria are most

important in promoting reliability.

What is required should be clearly defined and transparent to all parties explicitly.

Assessment criteria must be explicit this is particularly important in self/peer assessment.

Students may feel anxious when embarking on self and/or peer assessment. These concerns

may reflect such things as deep-seated beliefs about where the responsibility for assessment

lies i.e. with the lecturer not students, fears about the impartiality of students when

undertaking the assessment of other students, worries about the impact on relationships with

other students where assessment outcomes may not have been favourable.

In my view, the more students are involved in generating the criteria the greater their

understanding of the meaning of each criterion. This is likely to assist in increasing both the

validity of the assessment and its overall reliability. Opportunities for students to develop

and practice their assessment skills proves an effective means of improving reliability, as

does student involvement in the setting of criteria .

11
SGDC 5023/UUM

CONCLUSION

As a conclusion, I would propose self-and peer assessment as a key tool of

assessments in higher education as this provides fundamental evidence for short-and long

term learning among undergraduates initially and post graduation. The actual learning can

only be resulted with a strong reflection and feedback gained as a means of self evaluation

and peer evaluation methods which develops from test and presentations. This approach can

also encourage own learning and deeper understanding of learning outcomes that expected to

be achieved.

REFERENCES

Thomas,(2011): Enhancing students, future learning in higher education, Journal of

University & Learning Practice,Vol 8,Iss 1,Art 5

Biggs, J., & Tang, C. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student
does

(3rd ed.). Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.

Boud, D. (2007). Reframing assessment as if learning were important. In D. Boud & N.

Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term
(pp. 14-25).London: Routledge.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007a). Developing assessment for informing judgement. In D.
Boud & N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the
longer term (pp. 181-197). London: Routledge.

Boud, D., & Falchikov, N. (2007b). Introduction: Assessment for the longer term. In D. Boud
&N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer
term(pp. 3-13). London: Routledge

Davies, P. (2003). Closing the communication loop on the computerized peer-assessment of

essays. ALT-J Research in Learning Technology, 11(1), 41-54.

Engestrom, Y. (1989). Learning by expanding: An activity theoretical approach to

developmental research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit.

12
SGDC 5023/UUM

Falchikov, N. (2007). The place of peers in learning and assessment. In D. Boud & N.
Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term
(pp. 128-143). London: Routledge.

Lew, M., Alwis, W., & Schmidt, H. (2010). Accuracy of students' self-assessment and their
beliefs about its utility. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 35(2), 135-156.

Martin, D. (1994). Pre-service teachers' involvement with student centred approaches to

mathematics. Unpublished Honours thesis, La Trobe University, Bendig

13